Man Kei Ho, A Critical Study of T.F. Torrance’s Theology of Incarnation (Bern: Peter Lang, 2008), x + 290 Pps., $75.95.
Man Kei Ho was trained at Tyndale Seminary, as well as the University of Wales, the latter of which bestowed a PhD unto him. Ho is currently an adjunct Professor at the Canadian Chinese School of Theology at Tyndale Seminary (Toronto). In this volume, Ho analyzes T.F. Torrance’s theology of incarnation specifically, and elucidates many of Torrance’s presuppositions in his theology in general. Throughout, Ho indicates that one can proverbially see the shadow of Barth throughout Torrance’s theology of incarnation. The purpose of the book, according to the author, is to explore and examine various themes of Torrance’s theology of incarnation. The main part of the text is composed of five chapters, with an introduction preceding the onset of the book (chapter 1), and with a conclusion ending the text (chapter seven). In what follows, we shall cover the contents of this text more fully.
The introduction reviews various theological methods used by Torrance in the formulation of his theology, and Ho notes that Torrance seeks to maintain a careful balance between fidelity to patristic tradition and an openness to modern novelty. The latter chapters explore major subjects of Christian theology, such as Christology, Trinity, Revelational Epistemology, and Kenosis. In the second chapter, covering Torrance’s theological method, asserts that Torrance’s hermeneutics are more theological than biblical per se. Interestingly, Ho herein points out that Torrance held to three different levels of knowledge in his theological science: 1. Knowledge acquired through communion with and adoration of God through prayer, and fellowship of other believers; 2. The theological level, which is marked by the time one learns the saving action and efficacy of Christ; and 3. The ontological level, in which one learns of God in his own Being (one can see here a movement from the economic trinity toward the immanent trinity, note). The third chapter covers various aspects of Torrance’s views on the incarnation; notably, Ho contends that Torrance uses the term hypostatic union to affirm the dual nature of Christ – i.e. that he is both human and God – the term homoousion to affirm consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, and the term perichoresis to affirm the inter-relationship of the members of the Trinity (65-128). Ho contends that the Nicene-Constantinopolitian Creed gives Torrance the primary doctrinal platform for his work regarding the person of Christ (65).
Chapter four presents the case that for Torrance, the doctrine of the Trinity is not to be interpreted as moving from the three persons to the one being, or from the one being to the three persons, but rather as a dynamic movement of Trinity in unity and unity in Trinity (151-52). In fact, according to Ho, Torrance appreciates the term ‘Triunity more so that the term ‘Trinity’ with reference to the Godhead (152-53).The fifth chapter develops the idea that for Torrance, his theology was no less revelation-centered than was Barth’s; in fact, it is herein developed that Torrance saw the incarnation as revelation (195-206).Chapter six is probably the best one in this title, as Ho points out that Torrance rejects the modern kenotic theories of the incarnation that entail Jesus to have given up some of his divinity in order to become human; rather, Torrance views the kenosis of the Son to be an assumption of humanity instead of a subtraction of divinity (243-44). All in all, Ho critically interacts with Torrance’s positions at times, finding them at various junctures, perhaps even inconsistent and paradoxical. For one who is desirous of a hard-hitting – yet fair – appraisal of T.F. Torrance, especially as it relates to his views of the incarnation, this is the book to purchase.
Bradford McCall
Regent University